Amanda Knox: I’m Not Convinced

This whole Amanda Knox fiasco reminds me of the Casey Anthony fiasco. I don’t believe she’s innocent, as in I don’t think she has clean hands in this case. I think she’s a young, attractive American who was overseas loving the party life. She got in over her head in what looks like a drug induced orgy and her roommate ended up dead.

If she hadn’t repeatedly lied to the authorities from the outset, I might be a little less suspicious. But I think this is another case of a young, pretty girl who got away with murder. Or at least accessory to it. Would she be out of prison if she wasn’t an American?

Like this:

Related

Terri, those were my thoughts exactly… it makes me sick to see people getting away with horrible crimes. After the verdict was read on the Casey Anthony case, I had to step away from media for a little bit (a weird state of being, for a journalist) because I hated to be reminded–I still don’t understand how she got off.

Not really, but I found it curious that this woman’s innocence was nearly universally accepted by the media. She’s like a folk hero or something despite the fact that everything I read about the case (admittedly not much) made her look really bad.

I was just noting that the only place I’ve seen any mention of her possible guilt was from an MRA. Oh yeah, and from Michael Savage last night on the radio.

Nobody knows what happened exactly. I feel a bit weird for often quoting Steve Moxon (TWR) on these cases but I feel the following is relevant to ‘BWV pass’ (dalrock) again:

“A licence to kill

A uniquely female ploy to rebuff a murder charge is the plea of ‘delayed self-defence’. This is the invented notion that whereas men cool down over time, women instead boil over. Underpinning this is the equally bogus concept that what makes females peculiarly fume over a longer time frame is ‘cumulative provocation’. Of course, this
allows women to premeditate murder at a juncture when the spouse has dropped his guard and can‘t use his strength to restrain her. The legal system now actively justifies and thereby encourages this. A string of women convicted of murder for killing their husbands whilst they slept and/or poisoning them all had their sentences reduced to manslaughter through ‘diminished responsibility’.

The most famous of these women, Sara Thornton, drugged her husband Malcolm to sleep before knifing him to death. Convicted of murder, when re-tried on the basis of the new defence, she claimed that it was not her husband but herself who was the victim, with a supposed history of ‘battery‘. Yet no evidencewas presented in court to substantiate this and Malcolm’s relatives were certain that he was in no way violent. His first wife said Sara’s release was ‘a licence for any woman to kill her husband and say whatever she wants to say about him after he’s dead.’

Even Sara’s own father and step-motherwere against her. It was clear that not only was there delay between any provocation and the murder, but also premeditation. Four days before the murder, Sara told a colleague that she was going to kill Malcolm, and she had fed him a meal laced with tranquilisers. Just hours before the crime she had scrawled in lipstick, ‘Bastard Thornton, I hate you’ on the bedroom mirror. There was a clear precipitating event: Malcolm had told her he wanted a divorce; his son testifying that she feared that she might lose the house and money. All of the women whose cases were re-examined were acquitted.

Carol Peters drugged her husband and then stabbed him 39 times; Pamela Sainsbury strangled her husband with a rope while he was sleeping; Zoora Shah administered a fatal dose of arsenic; Josephine Smith shot her sleeping husband in the head; and Kiranjit Ahluwalia burned her husband alive in his bed.”

The American media seems no longer able to make the distinction between “not guilty”, which really means not proven, and “innocent”, which means, well, innocent.

In my local newspaper today, the headline of the Associated Press story about Knox’s release was “KNOX EXONERATED”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Italian court may have decided that the evidence was not strong enough against Knox for a conviction, but the facts of the case strongly indicat, at least to anyone with common sense, that she was involved in the murder.

I’ll take a somewhat contrarian view and argue that none of us are capable of knowing whether she’s guilty or not since we weren’t there and didn’t sit through the trial and view the evidence that was presented during that phase or during the appeals process. So I’ll hesitate from making judgements upon this case for now.

IIRC, she was technically charged with lying to police during an investigation, and thus was sentenced to time served for that charge…

Nah, just realistic. Now, I don’t know anything about this case nor do I care, but you’re right. Young, attractive, and female…. sounds like the qualifications to get a certified Polka/Puppy/Puppy Pass. Add in Amerikan and you’ve got the Empire to back it up.

Yawns. Someone just wants attention.
I wouldn’t talk about a case I hadn’t researched. As far as this case goes, I have researched it somewhat, and unlike CA most people in the know think she is innocent. I might also point out that the Italian justice system doesn’t have the protections built into the American one in terms of interrogations, evidence, double jeopardy , client-attorney privilege and standard rules of evidence.

I’ll be honest. Unless it was a Nifong, I don’t see an American prosecutor taking this case. Blood everywhere but none of AK’s nor her boyfriend’s DNA. Evidence, at least, links Guede (the other person in jail) to the crime. Brutal police interrogation (not necessarily physically) in a half understood language. A sensationalistic press. No motive to speak of.

I second Clarence. I’m not as well read on the case, but Knox seems to be more a victim of stupidity than a perpetrator of a heinous crime.

It’s not a perfect rule and I’m fairly certain I heard it in a movie, but the guilty are calm. They know they’re caught, they might as well enjoy the relative freedom and hot meals of the trial. The innocent are freaked out. Knox has never really been calm. It’s been four years and she never stopped panicking.

Clarence, I am aware of the case, My comment was that the Italians would tell a NZ or Aussie to go take a running jump. You would be suffering through the inquistorial system for years… if you were innocent .

… but she’s American, and she was able to get pressure on the judge. Hence the pass.

Yes, Chris, after 3 years in jail.
I’d say she’s been punished enough for something she almost certainly didn’t do, wouldn’t you? Far as I’m concerned it’s the Italian Prosecutor who is the real bad guy here. They got the guy who did it, I believe. They made victims of an American girl and her boyfriend, based on ridiculous pulpy theories as to motive, and hardly a smidgen of evidence (and that’s being generous). Partly because they pressured (and most likely panicked) this girl she implicated a totally innocent and proven so man who also spent a year in jail. At one point , there were 4 people in jail in Italy, and 3 of them didn’t belong there if you ask me. I think the notorious prosecutor in this case should serve some jail time.

All that being said, YES, she got the Cute Girl Attention Factor. Had the exact same thing happened to an American boy and his Italian girlfriend, I doubt there’d be 1/10th the attention. The appeal might have went the same way, probably would have, but no one would care.

You are aware, I’m sure, that Knox and her boyfriend admitted to cleaning up the crime scene with bleach. I guess they just decided to do a little spring cleaning. She also lied to the police about where she spent the night. She also fingered an innocent man.

I don’t think she’s a hero, but I don’t think there’s anywhere near guilt beyond a reasonable doubt here, or that it’s comparable to the Casey Anthony case (who I am pretty sure was guilty). In Casey Anthony’s case, we had a toddler up and die on her watch without her reporting it. Obviously that toddler died *somehow*, and that needs an explanation. To this day, she hasn’t explained it, and all we have instead are the changing and grossly implausible scenarios her attorneys cooked up. That fact that she didn’t report it, and wouldn’t explain it, leaves a big gaping explanatory hole, which is very hard to fill without foul play on her part. Furthermore, with her being a party animal and moving in with her boyfriend right after the incident, we’ve got a rather obvious plausible motive.

In Knox’s case, you just don’t have all these burning questions. We know it was murder, we know how the girl died, and we’ve got the guy who did it. At issue is whether Knox and her boyfriend were *also* involved as accessories, but the scenario makes sense without assuming that they were. There’s also nothing that would have clearly been a motivate, and we need to imagine a rather bizarre scenario to come up with one.

Equally baseless, of course, are these notions of yours that a male equivalent of feminism exists or can ever exist. Even a basic understanding of evo psych, which I’m sure you’re equipped with, will give all the reasons for that.

Equally baseless, of course, are these notions of yours that a male equivalent of feminism exists or can ever exist.

I’m sorry, Hollenhund. Tell me where or when I ever said a male equivalent of feminism exists. I have never, ever said that because I don’t believe it. Link, please? That was Alte if you’re referring to the comment above. Read closer before you go on the attack. This is starting to feel personal, :) .

“But of course the MRA folks feel that way, LOL.”

There’s a reason I put “LOL” behind that statement. You need to lighten up, guy. Seriously. Not everything is as deep as you make it sound. Not everything is a female slam against men or against MRA’s whom I happen to agree with on quite a number of issues.

Of course, you’ll need to live on a deserted island if you only wish to encounter and interact with people who agree with you 100% on every little point. Most people seem able to cooperate with people they agree with more often than not.

Thanks Chels, although I think most of know the differences. But I’m sure the newbies like Jo will appreciate the information.

One more thing Hollenhund: I never said I though Amanda Knox was guilty of first degree murder. Just that I don’t think she had clean hands here and that I think we bestow folk hero status on the wrong people in our useless media.

It’s very simple. We are now in a situation that resembles Weimar Germany. Either, a) become a trad-con like the men over at Chronicles b) become a revolutionary against the Revolution like Ferdinand Bardamu or Richard Spencer or c) take advantage of the degraded Culturally Marxist social landscape like Roissy/Tucker/Solomon II.

Bitching and begging the state is not a viable option. Nor is it going to make you anything other than a laughingstock.

That reminds me…. this site is getting a little boring since we’re not talking about how much Muslims and ethnic/racial/religious groups that suck ass. I’m going to go check out the League of the South.

„Tell me where or when I ever said a male equivalent of feminism exists. I have never, ever said that because I don’t believe it.”

I meant „you” in plural. This is Alte’s point of view, and neither you nor any other female contributor seems to disagree with her on this.

„Read closer before you go on the attack.”

What a curious choice of words. When I opine that a statement of yours (plural) is baseless, you suddenly consider it – a simple point of view – a personal „attack”. Funny how that works. It’s funny that you’re the one accusing me of getting defensive too easily.

„There’s a reason I put “LOL” behind that statement.”

There can be more than one reasons why one puts a „LOL” behind a statement. It can signal intentional ridicule of the subject of that statement – in this case, MRAs – or that one is basically only joking and not making a serious statement. Based on your previous comments, when reading that particular sentence of yours I saw no reason to believe that your statement, i.e. that you find it unsurprising that MRAs are skeptical about Knox’s innocence, was not intended to be serious.

@Alte

„But the underlying mentality of “sexual equality” is there, regardless of which one you are talking to.”

Well, well, that’s a rather curious statement, Alte. You know well that when MRAs (supposedly) promote that sort of equality, they do it for completely different reasons than the feminists. In fact, you explained it correctly here:

„What they (or most of them, at least) are saying is that enforcing strict gender neutrality would put women at a distinct and immediate disadvantage and show the innate unfairness of the current legal regime (where women have superior rights but inferior responsibilities). Only by making women uncomfortable will you spur them to supporting radical changes.”

MRAs don’t actually seem to believe in the concept of sexual equality, at least not in the sense of the word feminist use it in. They do seem to promote legal equality between the sexes, because it’s exactly the lack of that equality which victimizes men.

“Either, a) become a trad-con like the men over at Chronicles b) become a revolutionary against the Revolution like Ferdinand Bardamu or Richard Spencer or c) take advantage of the degraded Culturally Marxist social landscape like Roissy/Tucker/Solomon II.

Bitching and begging the state is not a viable option.”

d) Go your own way and shrug the social milieu which promotes concepts such as the one that men voicing their legitimate grievances equals “bitching”.

You’re always free to hijack the comment thread and start a discussion about stuff that interests you. Other people seem to do it often here. And yes, you should probably find an eligible husband soon and deliver a couple of children while you’re still relatively young (assuming that you’re young in the first place and aren’t already a mother).

I actually think men should give voice to their grievances. If nothing else, both fathers and mothers are parents, and their children need both sides in the public debates. It’s not that I think they’re “whiny bitches”, but that I don’t agree with their philosophy of sexual-equality. That’s the opposite of what I am myself promoting, which is a return to sexual-differentiation. I don’t think that they’re my enemies, in the way that feminists are (especially as feminism is associated with abortion), but they’re rather limited allies.

And yes, you should probably find an eligible husband soon and deliver a couple of children while you’re still relatively young (assuming that you’re young in the first place and aren’t already a mother).

Ummm yeah, so I totally did not mean having a debate on my personal life :s

As well, I already had this debate on Dalrock’s and I’m not getting into it again. However, I will confirm that I am young (26), I am in a relationship, and we plan on getting married, which also means I’m childless. With that being said, please let’s leave it at that.

When I opine that a statement of yours (plural) is baseless, you suddenly consider it – a simple point of view – a personal „attack”.

Forgive me for misunderstanding you yet again, Hollenhund. But when you preface your remarks with “@Terri”, it sort of gives the impression that your remarks are directed to me personally regarding something that I said. The Internet requires a certain level of specificity when communicating.

That said, I don’t feel the need to chime in and object to every comment offered that I may disagree with. I don’t even believe that Alte believes MRA and feminism are direct parallels. I assumed she was giving Joanna the simplest explanation she could for the sake of clarity.

I don’t even believe that Alte believes MRA and feminism are direct parallels. I assumed she was giving Joanna the simplest explanation she could for the sake of clarity.

Yes, I was. I do understand that there are differences between them. The larger point being that they both are forms of “liberation theology” that I don’t approve of, along with anarcho-libertarianism. Not every member is that extreme (as with feminism or traditionalism or libertarianism), but that is the core philosophy underlying the movement.

Unlike the feminists, with whom I have precious little in common, I agree with the MRAs on a number of things (mostly because I wish to shrink the state, promote paternity, and ensure justice), but their underlying mentality is one that I fundamentally reject. It is possible to promote the exact same policies under the umbrella of traditionalism, without having to tie ourselves down to their philosophy. I’ve learned a lot from the MRA-camp about what is wrong, but precious little about what is right.

“It is possible to promote the exact same policies under the umbrella of traditionalism, without having to tie ourselves down to their underlying philosophy. ”

Exactly. I’ve realized this as well. The Paleoconservative and AltRight movements promote the same exact things without the leftist mindset. The Roissysphere as well promotes a viable solution to the problem(bang all the hawt sluuts till Rome burns. Oh and make jokes about the whole situation. It has it’s appeals) that even though I don’t agree with it, I think it’s the best solution for secular men.

The problem with traditionalism is that MRA’s see women as the winners in it, and men the losers because they have to work their asses off to support their families, while the women sit at home and basically do nothing, thanks to modern technology.

Therefore, traditionalism will never fly with the MRM.

I think it’s the best solution for secular men.

Most secular men are not happy and do not feel comfortable with sleeping around, most of them do want to get married.

“The problem with traditionalism is that MRA’s see women as the winners in it, and men the losers because they have to work their asses off to support their families, while the women sit at home and basically do nothing, thanks to modern technology.

Therefore, traditionalism will never fly with the MRM.”

If we don’t care about the feminists’ opinion of traditionalism than why should we care about the MRM’s opinion of it?

The MRM is free to do what they wish, same as all those feminists who don’t need bicycles.

Actually, traditionalism doesn’t present such a strong dichotomy between working/homemaking. That’s why so many of us are big on small business, working from home, etc.

I think Chels and many others who read here fail to see the big picture. Many wives here have part time jobs and homeschool in addition to the normal work associated with homemaking. It’s no tip toe through the tulips. I do think the flexibility factor makes it much easier on us than on our husbands. That is certainly true. Our husbands know this and have made a conscious decision that having us available to them and the children is an acceptable trade off.

It’s like I told Joanna recently, I am not oblivious to the reality that I can go out and enjoy the nice weather with my kids in the park or have lunch with a friend. All I have to do is maneuver my schedule. My husband has a much bigger burden than I as the sole breadwinner during this shaky economic season. However there have been times throughout our marriage when I have helped generate income as well.

I really like Alte’s thoughts on agreeing with many of the MRM positions without agreeing with the core philosophy. I absolutely agree with her sentiments on that topic.

The problem is just as feminists don’t like it when women choose to forgo the career path, there are some in the MRM (the most strident voices) that are equally perturbed when men decide they want a wife who is a homemaker and mother first and foremost. The lack of respect for a mature adult’s “right” to live his or her life however he or she pleases can be found on both sides of the issue.

I’ve visited it before(about 2 or so years ago) and I didn’t think much of it, just thought it was some random site. I’m reading it now and I think it’s alright. It’s not as interesting or funny like Chronicles. I mainly mentioned it to ruffle a few feathers haha. One of my favorite things to do is say stuff like “I’m not racist” and then say something extremely racist afterwards hahaha.

Btw, you should come to Dixieland. It’s far more conservative than Canada.

“Svar: {Sigh} I know; remember when BF promised to leave Chris’ site, but has since returned? Alas…”

Yep. They never, ever leave. Remember how Jen would say that she’s leaving and then would come back in two weeks? Haha. It does seem that she’s left for good because she angry at how mean and patriarchal we are. Oh well.

“there are some in the MRM (the most strident voices) that are equally perturbed when men decide they want a wife who is a homemaker and mother first and foremost.”

Exactly, Terri. That’s why I don’t like the MRM: the same way the feminists call women who submit to and sleep with their husbands as prostitutes, the MRM calls men who want to provide for their families as slaves.

I could care less about either of these groups and their opinions. They don’t matter in the long run.

Terri, I have nothing against housewives, I think it’s pretty nice and you all do a lot of work, so it’s not like you’re “kept women”, which is what the MRM is against (they don’t think housewives are carrying their weight).

@ Svar: Many MRA types indeed go overboard with their anti-family attitude, because of course they want to not only liberate men from the effects of feminism, but from traditional patriarchy, as well. As a Christian, I disagree with their anti-family stance, their nothing that being a husband and father necessarily means being a ‘slave’. A civilization requires families, simple as that. No nuclear family = no civilization.

That said, I do think ‘going one’s own way’ is a viable option; in fact, it always has been, from our Lord Himself and St. Paul and others, to the many ‘confirmed bachelors’ there have always been, in our midst; I’ve known several… I do think it’s good that men see they have choices, too, same as women do. And I wouldn’t disparage any moral choices men make (to pursue marriage and family, or to stay a bachelor); immoral ones, obviously (becoming a ‘player’)… BTW, Anakin Niceguy penned an article for AVFM; normally, I’m not that fond of that site, precisely because they seem more bent on attacking patriarchy, but Anakin never did, at Biblical Manhood; he simply advocated going one’s own way as a moral choice men are entitled to make, correctly so, IMO. Anyway, here is his article; it’s an expansion of his previous discussions on ‘realmannspracht‘.

“That said, I do think ‘going one’s own way’ is a viable option; in fact, it always has been, from our Lord Himself and St. Paul and others, to the many ‘confirmed bachelors’ there have always been, in our midst;”

I have nothing against Christian MGTOWs at all. It is a valid and moral choice. Priests and monks are MGTOW.

“immoral ones, obviously (becoming a ‘player’)”

Well, I definitely disagree with the player lifestyle, but I consider the men of the AltRight/Manosphere as political allies(even though I’m a paleocon with a few alt-right views/attitudes) so I just look the other way. A few of my friends are Roissyian and I just look the other way. I don’t plan on being friends with them when I get out of college, get a job, and settle down, but for now they are fun to be around.

@ Svar: Yeah, I still spend much time in the manosphere; though I generally avoid spending much time, if any, at either the most hard-core PUA sites or the most hard-core MRA-MGTOW sites, the ones with the least charitable views of the opposite sex; ditto the most hard-core of the WN sites, for obvious reasons.

“Priests and monks are MGTOW.”

Indeed they are, and have contributed much, not only to the faith, but also to learning, and science. I sometimes think it’s unfortunate that the Reformation did away with the monastic tradition, rather than reforming it, and adapting it. I’m kinda glad the Anglicans have re-established it, in their tradition, at least. The idea of community, mutual support for men (and women) who decide to forego the married life, but instead dedicate themselves more fully to the Lord, is good; nothing is wrong with that; if there was corruption in the practice, the answer ought to have been to reform it, to clean house, rather than to abolish it, IMO. Ah well.

Hmmm; maybe I should start a Reformed monasticism, like the late ‘Internet Monk’, Michael Spenser, tried to do, heh heh.

“Yeah, I still spend much time in the manosphere; though I generally avoid spending much time, if any, at either the most hard-core PUA sites or the most hard-core MRA-MGTOW sites, the ones with the least charitable views of the opposite sex; ditto the most hard-core of the WN sites, for obvious reasons.”

Same here. I don’t visit the extreme harcore PUA sites because they sicken me but I still visit Roissy every now and then.

I don’t visit hardcore WN sites either. The only site that I read that leans in that direction would be Alternative Right and I barely read that site.

I think it’s pretty nice and you all do a lot of work, so it’s not like you’re “kept women”, which is what the MRM is against (they don’t think housewives are carrying their weight).

Yeah, but the point is that a “masculine” movement shouldn’t care what housewives do. That’s their husband’s business. If my husband wanted me to spend all day watching Oprah and painting my toenails, what’s it to them? It’s his money. If he wants to drop a grand buying me a new pair of shoes, good for him! If that’s what he wants to spend his time and money on, more power to him.

Like the feminists, masculinists are all for pre-approved choices, rather than letting men handle their own business.

That said, I do think ‘going one’s own way’ is a viable option; in fact, it always has been, from our Lord Himself and St. Paul and others

Yeah, I occasionally get the MGTOW guys on here, and they demand that we accept that they don’t marry. And I’m like… um hello… a lot of us are CATHOLIC! Duh. The celibate vocations aren’t just religious orders, but Catholic lay people, as well.

Here are two articles, both laden with profanity so consider yourselves warned, from my vault that deal with the MRM and MGTOW. I agree with what was written upthread by Svar and Will S with regards to religious MGTOW. My target was those advocating a life of prostitutes, surrogates, and artificial wombs:

I think it’s possible to agree with the MRA’s on some issues without embracing the element that closely mirrors the feminist movement. And you did a great job of pointing out the importance of solutions based activism rather than just complaints and whining.

@ Svar: {Sigh} I know; remember when BF promised to leave Chris’ site, but has since returned? Alas…
Well, my site is mainly commenting on the lectionary, except when I get pissed off with something and do a rant. At present have two boys with bug, the beginnings of a serious enquiry at work (patient charged with homocide), a conference to chair and a we lawsuit with the ex.

“Fatherhood, not escapism, is the proper masculine response to the social decay and disease that we see all around.”

BS. If you become a parent in a decaying society, you’re just feeding fresh meat into the grinder, unless you’re part of some completely isolated community like the Amish. Proper masculine responses include fighting to overthrow the system, assimilating to ascendant cultures or ethnic groups, or leaving for greener pastures to find an eligible wife. Men have been doing these for hundreds of years. Signing up for marriage 2.0 and bringing children into a decaying society is idiocy.

By the way, Ulysses commits the usual mistake of assuming that MRAs and MGTOW want to restore the bygone patriarchy.

When Knox lied so many times, I gave up believing she was innocent.
I’ve read all I could find, and to me, it didn’t look like a sex orgy.
It looks like it was a robbery gone bad. Meredith came home early. Knox knew everyone else in the apt was gone for the holidays. She knew where Meredith kept her money – in her bedroom drawer.
Knox unexpectedly didn’t have to work that night. She wanted drugs but had no money. She and her boyfriend went to the apt to steal Meredith’s rent money. They asked Guede to meet them there because they were going to give them the stolen money for drugs.
Meredith came home early, caught them, was so infuritated that she picked up her cell to call the cops.
Amanda’s boyfriend, Amanda, and Guede had too much to lose if the cops came.
Amanda would have been kicked out of Italy, Boyfriend would have been expelled from school, and Guede, well, he already had a jail record. He would have gone back for longer this time.
They all had too much to lose. When Meredith, in her anger yelled, “I’m calling the police!” They jumped her and Amanda and bf let Guede finish the job of murdering her. Sad, but true.
If that incompetent prosecutor had named it for what it was, a botched robbery, then Knox and bf would still be in jail where they belong for murdering Meredith.